29 comments

[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 74.6 ms ] thread
[flagged]
I find it rather concerning how quickly and gleefully some people throw away basic precepts of our civilisation just because they don't like someone. I thought we figured out that individuals should be treated as individuals, and not by any personal attributes they may have, such as family.

Should the parents of Jeffery Dahmer be banned from AirBnB? Or the parents of a convicted murderer or rapist who has since been released? That seems silly.

> just because they don't like someone

Way to diminish the hatred she has made a living propagating.

While I don't agree with any of the trash she peddles, I fail to see how any of it justifies banning her let alone her parents from an accomodation booking platform.
I mean in this sense lauren isnt the one being punished, it literally is that they dont like her parents by merit of association. But ironically they have no choice by virtue of who they are.
Her parents haven't.

This doesn't engage with anything I said at all: it just repeats "I don't like her" except stronger, and tries to dismiss things just because I didn't condemn this Lauren Southern person strong enough – whether she is good or bad or literally Hitler is completely irrelevant here.

> I find it rather concerning how quickly and gleefully some people throw away basic precepts of our civilisation just because they don't like someone. I thought we figured out that individuals should be treated as individuals, and not by any personal attributes they may have, such as family.

This is a private business doing what it pleases. This is nothing like throwing away civilization. That could be said however about the hate and dog whistling she perpetuates.

There are consequences of being a pile of shit, and those consequences reach past oneself. To refuse that reality seems pretty naive to me.

(comment deleted)
If your stance on this is "private businesses can decide who they do business with" then that's fine.

But do so in a consistent manner without approving of the legally required carve outs whose sole purpose is to enforce a world view you find acceptable

They are the modern version of puritanical fundamentalists.
Notably, they did not ban Jeffrey Epstein's or Ghislaine Maxwell's families.
Guilt by association is not cool, mmkay?
I'm curious to know how they could determine that an account belonged to the parents of someone whose account they had banned several years before (according to tweets).
Airbnb requires users to verify their ID so they have access to more information than the typical website.

It's also possible they had the same address or something.

(comment deleted)
I think once a platform has greater than N users, regulators need to oversee and regulate de-platforming.
Oversee and regulate in general, I'd go a step further and say once the private market discovers something like this we should have some part of the government develop a public alternative - that would solve a lot of the issues we're seeing with social media and companies like this by making them publicly owned and controlled

I think the big issue with deplatforming is that these companies generally have a monopoly in some way, so we need a viable alternative or they need to be publicly owned

I don't believe a government-run AOL is likely to produce more benefit than the web Cambrian explosion. This proposal would lead to government blessings making things like AOL too big to fail.
I'm more saying we'd let the private market do it's thing, but then once we realize there's some core needs - search, basic social media, forums, etc - then we can make a public alternative that's free to access and run by the people instead of a private company that has to prioritize profits
I anticipated that was what you meant, and believe it would have a horrific outcome. AOL, but run like the DMV.